Monday, December 15, 2008
Audit Interpretations: Safety Equipment
This is the start of a new series of posts about audit interpretations. In particular, I'm going to try to include situations that don't appear in the law (or require a clarification the taxpayer won't like). I'll also try to report on flat out abuses where the taxpayer, if they had challenged the auditor, would probably not have been robbed.
The first item comes from Michigan this week.
Two people on two different days, when we talked about safety equipment, told me this one. They said they had been assessed on the safety equipment worn by the office personnel when they went back into the manufacturing area. The goggles, etc. worn by the plant workers weren't a problem.
It looks like the auditor was right. Michigan law says that stuff that is used for administrative uses isn't exempt. Obviously the AP specialist isn't going in back to work a lathe, they're getting paperwork taken care of. In other words, administrative use.
Sales Tax Guy